Lawyers Weekly - legal news for Australian lawyers

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
lawyers weekly logo

Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA

Goodbye job applications, hello dream career
Seize control of your career and design the future you deserve with LW career

Ban on cross-examination where violence is a factor gets mixed responses

Family lawyers and advocates are lukewarm on the introduction of the Family Violence and Cross-examination of Parties Scheme, with some expressing concern and others saying more must be done.

user iconJerome Doraisamy 12 September 2019 SME Law
Federal Circuit Court

Source: yelp.com.au

expand image

From early this week, amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) have been made to provide protection to alleged victims of family violence who are cross-examined as part of family law proceedings.

Under the scheme – which is funded by the federal government to the tune of $7 million over three years, to be provided to legal aid commissions to provide legal representation to parties subject to the ban – cross-examination will now be conducted by legal representatives.

In a statement, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia said: “This will remove the fear of being directly cross-examined by their perpetrator as a factor in a woman’s decision whether to settle a matter and encourage women who have experienced family violence to pursue their legal entitlements.”

“The provision of legal assistance will also support the expeditious resolution of family law matters, assisting women to recover from abusive relationships and obtain economic security for themselves and their children sooner,” it continued.

Women’s Legal Service Queensland CEO Angela Lynch said the organisation “has some hope” looking ahead to the future.

“WLS was integral to lobbying for this change, so obviously we congratulate the government for the passing of the legislation and the establishment of the scheme throughout Australia. We think that there’s real potential for the legislation to highlight issues of domestic violence in the court and ensure there are appropriate protections for victims of domestic violence to avoid ongoing trauma,” she said.

But, she added, WLS has concerns that there is not enough funding to this service.

“We’ve heard at least in [Queensland] that it has already reached the limit – so, without appropriate backup and funding, the protections offered will be academic for our clients. We really do require that funding,” she said.

When asked whether the new scheme was a good or bad thing, VM Family Law principal Katherine Manby said it would depend on the understanding of the judge, the advocates and the parties.

“I generally think it is a massive step forward and should have been implemented ages ago, but I also have a heap of concerns about possible appeals as a result of the new rules,” she said.

“Where the judge gets DV, it could work. Where the judge doesn’t get DV, it won’t. Education is required for all practitioners, judicial officers etc [so that] the people in need of protection will get their protection.”

Novus Law Group Australia solicitor Janis Donnelly-Coode said: “I am concerned about the appeals (and therefore opportunity to put the victim to further cost and stress) but also, how can you force a lawyer on someone? Just think about our profession and the basis upon which we act and the very nature of what we do. If you have an abuser who is refusing to accept the appointment of the legal aid solicitor (because they insist on their right to do it themselves) how can the solicitor act? And once that trick is figured out, what value will this legislation be?”

Brisbane Family Law Centre director Clarissa Rayward responded that she thinks the scheme is a good first step.

“Like everything new there will be some challenges. I do think though better funding generally to legal aid and the court generally is still the priority to assist all families in the court system but particularly those children and adults who have been subject to abuse and violence,” she noted.

Jerome Doraisamy

Jerome Doraisamy

Jerome Doraisamy is the managing editor of Lawyers Weekly and HR Leader. He is also the author of The Wellness Doctrines book series, an admitted solicitor in New South Wales, and a board director of the Minds Count Foundation.

You can email Jerome at: jerome.doraisamy@momentummedia.com.au 

Comments (3)
  • Avatar
    What is missing is that NOWHERE does it say how a matter is to proceed. Assume 2 Applicants and 1 Respondent in a Family Law matter. both Applicants appear unrepresented, The respondent also appears unrepresented, BUT because of allegations of violence the respondent is provided with a "Cross Examination Lawyer" The procedural issues are not spelt out. If only one of the Applicants is accused of Violence, naturally that XX Layer would XX that applicant where violence is raised. BUT Can they also XX the other Applicant where no allegations of violence has been raised? . Nothing is spelt out. But common seance would dictate that the XX Solicitor can only XX one Applicant and that the Respondent is left to there own devices regarding XX the other Applicant. Can the XX Lawyer also object to various documents etc at the hearing before they attempt XX. Food for thought !! Anonymous
    0
  • Avatar
    Lying allegations of domestic violence, sexual assault etc are endemic. No more idiotic phrase was ever uttered than “We believe you”. Some I do, some I don’t. But anonymous or sheltered accusations made from a coward’s castle do not deserve immediate acceptance. Yes, women can and do lie, thank God, not most but enough to be a real problem for the justice system if they become a protected species.
    1
  • Avatar
    I understand that in NSW, Legal Aid is administering the provision of services to the unrepresented parties in this scheme and that they are requiring that no hearing be set down for three months after the order has been made. How is that going to facilitate speedier outcomes?
    0
Avatar
Attach images by dragging & dropping or by selecting them.
The maximum file size for uploads is MB. Only files are allowed.
 
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
The maximum number of 3 allowed files to upload has been reached. If you want to upload more files you have to delete one of the existing uploaded files first.
Posting as
You need to be a member to post comments. Become a member for free today!